Perk cost modification for GV

[tmetal]

I don't GV much so, me playing devils advocate here wont mean a whole lot.  The way I see it, attackers where at the logistical disadvantage. They had to get supplies/ammo/fuel/personell to the advancing tanks to support them and keep them running. Defenders had to hold their ground and often times had a better logistic situation than the attackers because they would have had time to build defences and establish supply routes, repair depots, etc (unless they where surrounded or otherwise cut off). This leads me to believe that defenders would be better able to keep their GVs operational and suffer less in material loss during an even battle (which the MAs are since rides don't take time to manufacture and one country can't destroy another countries ability to produce fighting men and machines) and I see perks (or loss of) as a way to simulate in a small way the very real logistics problems experienced by both sides during WWII.  So defender GVs get a break in the form of ease of ending sorties with little or no loss of perks to help simulate all the logistical support they would have had on hand that the attackers normally didn't have as readily available. 

To sum up my above ramblings, defenders have "home field advantage" in the form of ease of ending sorties without perk loss.  If anybody can figure a better way to balance the GV part of the game but still be able to give some "home field advantage" to the defenders then lay it out properly and in detail so we can try to get it implemented in game. 

[AWwrgwy]

Why has this never been an issue with the Tiger I or Panther? Because they are not as impossible to kill?



wrongway

[Tank-Ace]

problem is no one will order us to attack. There is no reason people should attack if they have no reasonable chance of heavy tank support for the attack. In real life, you couldn't just 'tower out'. If you got damaged, you were stuck there till someone recovered you or you were able to fix your tank.


And yes Awwrgwy. Panthers have been killed by M8's even. Its possible to engage Tiger I's and panthers out to 1800yds or so (theoreticly) with a free or cheaply perked tank. Both have been killed at those ranges before. Its hard to do, it doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.

[tmetal]

problem is no one will order us to attack. There is no reason people should attack if they have no reasonable chance of heavy tank support for the attack. In real life, you couldn't just 'tower out'. If you got damaged, you were stuck there till someone recovered you or you were able to fix your tank.

That is part of the point I was making. In real life of course you can't just tower out, but you also can't just teleport a brand new tank and crew into the battle, so we play the game with the tools we are given. In a real life battle the defenders have a better chance of recovering/repairing damaged tanks than the attackers do.  If an attacker is damaged or disabled beyond the crew's ability to quickly repair then that GV is normally abandoned to be completely destroyed or captured.  In the MAs players attacking an enemy base are in enemy territory until that base is captured (and the defenders are defending; not retreating, untill the base is captured), of course the defenders would have an advantage if that where a real life situation. This advantage is represented in game by the defenders ablility to end sorties easier without perk loss.  I say again; home field advantage.

[Tank-Ace]

actually, the attackers have a better chance at recovering vehicles because they're moving forward, not back. In real life, attacks very rarely were stopped by the first enemy units encountered. Attacks were slowed and then eventually stopped as the attackers ran out of resources. The ease of defense is blown WAY out of proportion in Aces High.

And the frontline starts halfway between the spawn and the base IMO. Area between two spawns or two bases is just no man's land. Get behind the base and your behind enemy lines, get even with the base, and you're in the middle of their defensive line.

Look at the Battle of Kursk. It had the most dense and powerful (for its technology period) defenses of any possition in modern history. It was the only place where the anti-tank gun to attacking tanks ratio was 3:1.  The mine fields had 1.5 mines for every square meter of ground. Even with all this, the Germans still went forward untill they ran out of steam. They weren't stopped by the inital defense, they overwhelmed those.

[tmetal]

I thought the main problem here was defenders using friendly concrete to land their perked GVs? In no mans land everybody suffers from loss of perks when trying to find a good place to land their perked rides.  If you are close enough to an enemy base to cause them to have to up from the V-hangar and they can land hits on you without having to leave friendly concrete then I would consider that behind enemy lines, because your nearest spawn point (or source of supplies) has been left far behind in what you call no mans land. Transpose this situation into real life and the defenders are on a friendly base with supplies readily available and you have advanced far past your own supply depot (advanced spawn point) and the attackers would have the logistical problems that come with that. So unless you have far supperior tech and equipment, or numbers on your side; (keep in mind that in game each side has the same amount of access to fighting men and machines) the defenders would have an easier time at this hypothetical real life battle than the attackers. In game this done by letting the defenders have an easier time of landing their perked rides.  People might not like the way this is done but it is what we have to work with until HTC comes up with or hears a better solution.

[Lusche]

I thought the main problem here was defenders using friendly concrete to land their perked GVs? In no mans land everybody suffers from loss of perks when trying to find a good place to land their perked rides.

Technically, there is no no mans land, it's either friendly or hostile territory. And the attacker loses full perks in enemy presence, while defender only loses half when out in the field.

[SmokinLoon]

If HTC could place a patch of cement near the spawn point... would that work???  yeah, I know it would be a beacon for camper fire, but it is a simple fix (if the code can support it).

[Lusche]

If HTC could place a patch of cement near the spawn point... would that work???  

No, because it's still enemy territory.

[tmetal]

Technically, there is no no mans land, it's either friendly or hostile territory. And the attacker loses full perks in enemy presence, while defender only loses half when out in the field.

And to me this seems fair because the attacker is not in friendly territory when he ends sortie.  In real life if a tank is disabled behind enemy lines then it is lost untill such time that it is no longer behind enemy lines if ever, if a tank is disabled behind friendly lines then it would still be recoverable. However HTC denotes friendly from enemy soil is their choice that we have to work with, so in game you are a defender as long as you are on friendly soil, cross into enemy soil and the penalty for losing your GV becomes appropriately worse.

Just an FYI, I personaly don't like the way the perk loss system for GVs is right now for several situations (not liking something and thinking that same something is fair are two different things to me). One of them is the situation with the GV defenders and the other is the loss of perks when bombed by airplanes. But I enjoy debating the flipside of a coin to help me better understand all sides of a problem.

[Tank-Ace]

If an attack breaks the enemy lines, and forms a sailent, they are behind enemy lines, but only in the sense that they have gotten behind the main enemy defense line. Bit they're not IN enemy territory, because the attack dislodged the enemy from that particular possition.

And I think the spawn placment is more for gameplay than because HTC wanted to represent being behind enemy lines. They're close enough that you don't have to drive 40 minutes to get to a fight, but they're far enough that the defenders have a fair chance to scrable and up tanks or aircraft.

Lusche is right though, TECHNICALLY, the ground is either friendly or hostile. But its just that, a technicallity.

[SmokinLoon]

No, because it's still enemy territory.

But if that patch of cement is tied with the spawn point.. why not?  Again, an answer for the Coading Gawds to answer.